Talk:Young Global Leaders

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a logo be included in this article to improve its quality.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Guys, does this page without the list of members still have any use? Maybe we should scrap it?! Matthias Lüfkens

It's an independent legal entity separate from the World Economic Forum now, so I think it does merit its own article! Esperto di vino (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

list of Young Leaders faulty

1. the source (Japantimes) does not correspond with the names on the list! T. i. the source isn't a source.

2. f. e. Sebastian Kurz is not a YGL. He may have held speeches in Davos, like many other members of governments, but he is not a YGL.

The article should get a check in total!

More:

The reference for Tulsi Gabbard being in the list of alumna is to a search page (for "gabbard") on the Young Global Leaders site, but it returns no hits. The list needs to be checked and fixed. 200.60.135.218 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above: it appears her entry at the YGL site has been removed. Here's an archived copy of the search results from February 8, 2022: https://web.archive.org/web/20220208110739/https://www.younggloballeaders.org/community?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=gabbard 200.60.135.218 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is right-wing conspiracy

Please remove this right-wing conspiracy article. Nothing to see here! --177.44.214.161 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I inserted the words "misspoken, saying that" into the paragraph below, to prevent it from being misleading.

The original was:

In a 2017 interview, Klaus Schwab stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been recognized as a Young Global Leader, and also mentioned Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "When I mention names like Ms Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on, they have all been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now is the young generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on."

and it is now:

In a 2017 interview, Klaus Schwab had misspoken, saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been recognized as a Young Global Leader, and also mentioned Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "When I mention names like Ms Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on, they have all been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now is the young generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on."

Actually, the paragraph and the one following it should be removed.

There is no controversy given that Schwab had misspoken. So why then attempt to disprove it in the next paragraph?

This looks to me like an attempt at trying to character assassinate?

If there are no objections, I will remove the two paragraphs shortly. Businessgeekinternational (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the paragraphs. Businessgeekinternational (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd deletion of the listing of YGLs

I have just made a de facto reversal of a previous deletion of the entire listing of members for reasons which do not stand up to scrutiny. As far as I can tell from my understanding of the grouping, its very prominence stems EXCLUSIVELY from its membership. It has very little additional significance apart from that. It is therefore quite odd to say that the listing of selected members is not useful. Without knowing who the members are (Macron, Trudeau et al), the discussion about WHY the grouping generates so much controversy and is seen as so selective. Look at any citation given in this page by any of the editors – each citation is less about the grouping, and more about what the grouping represents given its membership. How then could one say the members are not relevant to the discussion?

Permit me to use an analogy: imagine describing a concert without mentioning the musician performing. Imagine attending a concert review where the writer only talks about the stage setup, the lighting, and the seating arrangement but never mentions the artist or the music played. Such a review would be obviously hollow and very poor as the most crucial element, the performer and their artiste, were omitted.

Similarly, discussing this grouping without at least listing some of the people within that grouping leaves out the most vital aspect. The individuals define the grouping here. And almost every single individual in the list has been verified and themselves have their own Wikipedia page, which sort of proves my point about the fact that the primary significance of the organisation lies in its membership. Without acknowledging the individuals involved, any discussion would be superficial, lack depth and fail to convey the true nature of the grouping.

Quite clearly, lists are all over the place in Wikipedia. These include prominent Canadians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Canadians) and prominent Rotarians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rotarians). The lists go on but you get the point.

I however have not reversed the edits on the projects portion of the page, where the same editor deleted the project listings, because I can see where he/she is coming from. It is not clear if the projects were the individual projects of the individuals – at least, based on a desktop search – and in that sense, may not be truly relevant to the grouping. I hope that those who know the organisation much better than I do though can share more information about projects within the grouping for an even more comprehensive entry on the group.

P.S. For those who don’t see the citations behind each name, it is because the deletions effected by the editor in questions, the links were all lost as it could not be undone as a result of intermediate editing. I will slowly build the citations again over the upcoming days since the list is only as good as it is verified but it would be great if others can help and indeed add to the list. The point is a comprehensive list is better than no list given the nature of the organization. The more the merrier. Whateverittakesitwhatever (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're stating here is both WP:OR and against the concepts in the reasons why we have lists on WP as given here. Please match the needs in these two WP standards before adding any of this list back in. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you carefully read the write-up of the stand-alone lists here, it actually proves my point. Look at the common selection criteria of that write-up, almost every individual meets his own notability criteria and the very power in the grouping lies in its members. Please actually read your links and understand the purposes of lists before just deleting for no rhyme or reason or just putting some entirely false premise for deleting.

As for the reference to WP:OR, you realise that I provided links to verifiable sources for almost every single name I put in right meaning it clearly is not "original material for which no reliable, published source exists"? The only reason my links haven't been put up is because you made the edits in a way where I could not undo it, such that the links have disappeared, which is why I made the point above that I have to rebuild the citation body again. You can check the history of the post for proof that my entries were fully supported by external links which took quite a long time to compile by the way. It takes a certain level of temerity to delete my verifiable links in a way that made it impossible to revive easily such that I would have to redo all of them, only to then pretend that the list has no verifiable sources, which you deleted. *SMH*

I have no doubt you will find some other BS reason to delete the lists again. Please proceed to do it, but don't pretend that you come from a place of knowledge or wisdom because as can be seen above, none of your reasons make sense. As a matter of principle, I am, and will continue to, undo your edits. No doubt you will come up with some other BS reason, that's your prerogative, as much as it is my prerogative to call you out on it. If you want to delete based on your random whims and fancies, go ahead, but at the very least, be honest about it. Whateverittakesitwhatever (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]